UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1175
MADISON CAPITAL COMPANY LLC; MADISON FORT LAUDERDALE, LLC,
Plaintiffs – Appellees,
v.
JOSEPH H. MILLER, IV,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:08-cv-01563-PMD)
Argued: March 25, 2011 Decided: May 26, 2011
Before KING, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Clayton B. McCullough, PRATT-THOMAS WALKER, PA,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Bryson Moore Geer,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Jennifer H. Thiem, NELSON
MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In this diversity action to enforce a personal guarantee of
a business loan obligation, Defendant guarantor Joseph H.
Miller, IV, appeals the district court’s award of summary
judgment to Plaintiff lender Madison Capital Company LLC, joined
on appeal by its post-judgment assignee, Madison Fort
Lauderdale, LLC. Miller asserts in the main that the district
court misconstrued the governing law of New York and the duties
and obligations thereby imposed in connection with the Loan
Agreement and Guaranty of Payment executed by the parties to the
underlying transaction. In addition to his contentions of legal
error, Miller maintains that the district court improperly
resolved genuine issues of material fact in Madison’s favor and
ignored meritorious equitable defenses that should have
precluded the entry of summary judgment against him.
With respect to one equitable defense that Miller now
contends the district court ignored (an alleged violation of his
due process rights), Miller failed to preserve appellate review
by presenting the defense in the district court. Generally,
“issues that were not raised in the district court will not be
addressed on appeal.” See Holland v. Big River Minerals Corp.,
181 F.3d 597, 605 (4th Cir. 1999). As a result, we review
Miller’s due process contention for plain error only. See
2
Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng’g, Inc., 369 F.3d
385, 396-97 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
Having carefully examined the record and assessed the
parties’ written submissions together with the argument of
counsel, we discern no reversible error. We are therefore
content to affirm the judgment of the district court for the
cogent reasons spelled out in its memorandum Order of September
22, 2009 — excepting, of course, the unpreserved due process
contention that was not presented to the court and which fails
to survive plain error review. See Madison Capital Co., LLC, v.
Miller, No. 2:08-cv-1563, 2009 WL 3065205 (D.S.C. Sept. 22,
2009).
AFFIRMED
3